2. BOD and BOB are not Church dogma; you may accept or reject it. (Heretical because BOD/BOB are dogma and must be accepted).
3. BOD is to be rejected but not BOB. (This is not only heretical but illogical as the proponents admit that there is an exception to water baptism for salvation).
4. Explicit faith is necessary for BOD and BOB; implicit faith (invincible ignorance) will not save. (These Feeneyites reject Church teaching, especially that of Pope Pius IX).
I was upbraided on Twitter by a Feeneyite in category #4 above. He claimed my post on "Self-Approved Theologians" of 11/22/21 made me a "heretic" since I accept implicit BOD. When I called him a Feeneyite, he rejected the appellation. Feeneyites are all those heretics who reject in whole or in part Church dogma on BOD and BOB. Of course, when I challenged my Twitter adversary to a written debate on a neutral forum, he declined and "bravely ran away" like all Feeneyites I've ever known.
This post will refute the "four degrees" of Feeneyism, especially those who deny BOD is available to those in invincible ignorance and have implicit faith (category #4 above). [Please note that this post will refer to Leonard Feeney without the title "Fr." Despite being a valid priest, he forfeits his right to his clerical title when solemnly excommunicated by the pope. Hence, we speak of Martin Luther, not "Fr. Luther." In addition to the works cited herein, I am indebted to my friend Steven Speray. His research and our conversations have been invaluable to me. He is a great friend and true warrior for the One True Church of Christ. Long before I ever wrote my first post on Feeneyites, Steve had done a most laudable job of dismantling the heresy--especially as expounded by the Dimonds. I strongly recommend Steve's blog Catholicism in a Nutshell https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/ to all my readers.---Introibo].
Baptism of Desire and of Blood are an Infallible Teaching of the Magisterium
The Extraordinary Magisterium pronounces it dogma as does the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.
From the Council of Trent:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine).
From the Decree on Justification:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (Emphasis mine).
How do we know what these passages mean? The unanimous consent of all approved theologians and the Catechism of the Council of Trent tell us so.
If you inform a Feeneyite that there was unanimous consent of the theologians and Fathers regarding the reception of the effects/grace of Baptism apart from the sacrament (BOD/BOB) making it also a teaching of the infallible Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, you will get two standard responses from Fred and Bobby's script: (1) Not ALL the Fathers agreed, and (2) theologians are not infallible. They usually throw in Aquinas not accepting the Immaculate Conception as further "proof" that theologians and Doctors of the Church can be wrong.
First, they don't understand that it's not NUMERICAL unanimity but MORAL unanimity that counts. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):
When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.
According to theologian Scheeben, The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine).
So moral unanimity is the criteria for Fathers and theologians. As to the fact that theologians and even Doctors of the Church are not infallible, again, I turn to theologian Scheeben:
Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it." (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). As to Aquinas, the matter of the Immaculate Conception was not settled but open to debate among the theologians. His main problem was how to reconcile Mary's Immaculate Conception with the fact she (like all humans) needed to be redeemed. Pope Pius IX addressed this concern in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus when he defined that Mary was preserved free from Original Sin "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ." Hence, she was redeemed by Christ in a unique manner. BOD/BOB is infallible by means of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as well as the extraordinary Magisterium.
Feeneyites of the first three categories stand refuted. But what of those who claim that BOD and BOB can only be efficacious by having explicit faith, and invincible ignorance cannot save anyone? There is a lot of misunderstanding here which I will deal with next.
Implicit Faith and Invincible Ignorance
One of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Church is that of invincible ignorance. It is most commonly (and wrongly) regarded as meaning that anyone who doesn't know about the One True Church gets a free ride to Heaven. This, of course, would make Church membership unnecessary for salvation, which is heresy. Since invincible ignorance is closely tied with Baptism of Desire, it is attacked by Feeneyites, as well as those who ask, "Why bother becoming a True Catholic with all of the 'working out salvation in fear and trembling' when it would be easier to be ignorant?" All of this comes from a basic lack of knowledge regarding the theology behind invincible ignorance and what it really means according to the Church. I will attempt to set out the teaching of the Church in this matter.
According to moral theologians McHugh and Callan, "Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances." (See Moral Theology, [1930] 1:12).
Although invincible ignorance is tied to Baptism of Desire it is NOT identical to it. Hence, ignorance (vincible or invincible) does NOT save anyone. It cannot save. Invincible ignorance was set forth authoritatively by Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of August 10, 1863. In paragraph # 7, the pontiff first restates the the necessity of the Church for salvation:
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.
Immediately after this, Pope Pius IX also teaches about invincible ignorance:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Of course, this teaching is abused by heretics who would extend this ignorance to most or all people, thereby making the Church superfluous. On the other hand, the Feeneyites, will deny any possibility of salvation for men and women of good will in invincible ignorance unless they are baptized with water. Neither is the case.
Necessity of Precept and Necessity of Means.
For all of this to make sense, a person must first understand some basic theological concepts.
Necessity of precept, means that something is necessary from a moral obligation as the result of a commandment. It applies only to adults who have the use of reason and ceases to apply if there is an excusing cause. It is a necessity of precept to abstain from meat on Friday. It is a commandment of the Church which does not bind those outside the Church, and those within can be excused by proper ecclesiastical authority for cause and commit no sin.
Necessity of means, signifies something without which the ends cannot be attained. For example, a validly ordained priest is necessary to consecrate the Eucharist. There is no exception.
The One True Church is necessary, not only by precept, but by a necessity of means--extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church, no salvation"). This entails that salvation does not come automatically assured to someone because he is invincibly ignorant and guiltless in failing to use the requisite means of salvation. In the natural order, for example, if a ship sinks and you were invincibly ignorant of needing a lifeboat and/or life-jacket on board (and therefore you were without one), your ignorance and freedom of malice will not prevent you from drowning.
Necessity of means is further divided into necessity of means by nature or by positive ordinance of God. By positive ordinance of God there results an extrinsic bond established between two things according to God's Will. Such holds for the sacrament of Baptism. Such a means can have a substitute, or the means can be applied in some other way than its actual use. The means can be employed either actually or in desire (in re or in voto). They are not two distinct means, but one and the same--either perfectly (the sacrament of baptism with water) or imperfectly (Baptism by Desire or by Blood).
So, for example, a pagan who loved God with his whole heart and was invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church and how to enter would implicitly desire baptism if he willed, "I want to use all the means God has proscribed for salvation." God could thereby save him at the moment of death by the infusion of the true faith and sanctifying Grace (Baptism of Desire).
(All of the above in this section was condensed from theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, [1961], 2: 256-258).
Summary of Church Teaching
- It is a very serious error to hold that people who live apart from the True Faith and Catholic Unity can attain eternal life if they die in this condition
- The person who is invincibly ignorant of the True Religion, and who meticulously obeys the Natural Law, lives an honest and upright life, and is prepared to obey God, can be saved through the workings of Divine light and grace
- Such a person has already chosen God as his ultimate End. He has done this in an act of charity. This person has his sins remitted within the One True Church of Christ. God can infuse faith and grace, and dying in this state, he receives the reward of Heaven by Baptism of Desire
- Traditionalists have a duty to fulfill the Great Commission, converting as many people as possible because you cannot depend on extraordinary means, like BOD, to save them
Reply: Pope Pius IX does not teach that invincible ignorance saves, nor does he teach that the invincibly ignorant can only be saved through baptism with water. The staunchest supporter of the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was theologian Michael Muller (1825-1899), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a catechism entitled, Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. It sets forth perfectly the teaching of the Church:
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite Mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable (invincible) ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite Mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the Truth of the Catholic Faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation. (Emphasis mine).
As can be plainly seen, there really is no implicit faith--there is explicit faith in the internal forum known but to God. Does this in any way detract from our duty to convert everyone to the One True Church? Hardly. If anything, it should make us work harder for the salvation of souls. In the natural order, if you knew someone was poor and starving, would you bring them food or rely on God to miraculously feed them?
Finally, Whose Kidding Whom?
Here is a partial list of some absurdities Feeneyites believe to maintain their heresy. Number 6 below applies to those Feeneyites who admit explicit Faith is efficacious for BOD/BOB, but reject implicit desire and invincible ignorance as taught by Pope Pius IX.
1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by catechisms for centuries. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has been the official catechism of the Church, teaching heresy, unnoticed or uncorrected by all the popes, from the 16th century until 1958.
2. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by Canon Law for over 100 years.
3. The Catholic Church allows heresy to be taught throughout the whole Church for hundreds of years, and no pope stopped it.
4. Protestant and Eastern Schismatic sects are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the True Religion when it teaches heresy by law and catechism.
5. All the popes and approved theologians that taught Baptism of Desire/Blood after Trent were ignorant of that same Council's "dogma" that there is only baptism by water.
6. Pope Pius IX was ignorant of the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism, and promulgated heresy about invincible ignorance. When approved theologians during his life explained what he meant, he did not stop them or censure them. [How could he promulgate heresy and still be a true pope? This would make it morally certain that he had fallen from office prior to that time by espousing heresy as a private theologian].
7. Pope St. Pius X allowed a heretical catechism to be promulgated in Italy bearing his name. He never knew it contained teaching on BOD/BOB--or else he knew it and didn't stop the heresy pushed in his name.
8. St. and Doctor of the Church Alphonsus Liguori didn’t understand the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism and interpreted Trent to mean exactly opposite to its true meaning. In spite of that, Pope Pius IX in 1871 declared him a Doctor of the Church for his orthodoxy in teaching the faith.
9. Every layman that believes in Baptism of Desire/Blood is a heretic and a liar, but all the popes, saints, and Doctors of the Church that professed the same are not heretics or liars, but they simply "made a mistake."
10. Defenders of Baptism of Desire/Blood who use the teachings of popes, catechisms, Canon Law, and Doctors of the Church are bad-willed and cannot be sincere.
(Credit for the above section to Mr. Steven Speray).
Conclusion
Feeneyites continue to plague social media and websites by pushing their heresy. Church teaching on BOD/BOB must be accepted, as all dogma, whole and entire. To deny or willfully doubt such teaching in any degree, is to abandon the One True Church completely.
Thank you for this very enlightening post ! I have frequented the Dimond brothers' website often to "learn" sedevacantism, but since they reject the dogmatic teachings of the Church, I no longer go there. The Holy Church cannot teach error and that is why the V2 sect is not the Catholic Church because it claims that everyone will be saved, even by being outside the Church or living in sin, like "good atheists", non-Catholics, sodomites or "divorced-remarried".
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteIn the Vatican II sect you can be ANYTHING EXCEPT CATHOLIC!
God Bless,
---Introibo
“ If the Precious Blood had been shed, and yet we had no priesthood, no Sacraments, no jurisdiction, no sacramentals, no mystical life of the visible unity of the Church– life, so it seems, would be almost intolerable. This is the condition of those outside the Church; and certainly as we grow older, as our experience widens, as our knowledge of ourselves deepens, as our acquaintance with mankind increases, the less hopeful do our ideas become regarding the salvation of those outside the Roman Church. We make the most we can of the uncovenanted mercies of God, of the invisible soul of the Church, of the doctrine of invincible ignorance, of the easiness of making acts of contrition, and of the visible moral goodness among men; and yet what are these but straws in our own estimation, if our own chances of salvation had to lean their weight upon them? They wear out, or they break down. They are fearfully counterweighted by other considerations. We have to draw on our imaginations in order to fill up the picture. They are but theories at best, theories unhelpful except to console those who are forward to be deceived for the sake of those they love–theories often very fatal by keeping our charity in check and interfering with that restlessness of converting love in season and out of season, and that impetuous agony of prayer, upon which God may have made the salvation of our friends depend.”
ReplyDeleteFr Frederick Faber, ‘The Precious Blood’
@anon. 11:15
DeleteWhat a beautiful quote; it really sums it up nicely!
God Bless,
Dapouf
@anon11:15,
DeleteFather Faber draws a good distinction. A good Catholic priest who believed in BOD/BOB as he must, he also emphasizes the need to bring all into the Church with our prayers and efforts to convert them.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThe dogma of the Catholic religion is that "The first parents were created as to the body immediately by God." ("Sacrae Theologiae Summa" IIb, p. 229). This formula as such does not deny the creation of the human body through evolution. Pope Pius XII teaches that it is not at all contrary to this dogma to accept the creation of the human body through evolution.
However, the Church Fathers and theologians were unanimous in teaching that God created Adam's body from the dust of the ground. Some say that because there was unanimous agreement among the Fathers and theologians this is dogma. How would you respond to this objection to the teaching of Pius XII?
God Bless,
Paweł
Pawel,
DeleteThe basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by the eminent theologian Van Noort:
Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.
Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224)
Hence, the Fathers were unanimous in teaching the special creation of Humanity, not the exact mode.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you very much for your reply. In other words, the Church Fathers and theologians unanimously taught as Catholic doctrine that God immediately created the bodies of our first parents from matter.
Regarding the principle of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, I think this is beautifully expressed in the text of the draft Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:
"The Holy Synod teaches, as God's Holy Church has always taught, that the Church is necessary for salvation and that no one can be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ, nevertheless refuses to enter her or to persevere in her. Just as no one can be saved except by receiving baptism--by which anyone who does not pose some obstacle to incorporation becomes a member of the Church--or at least by desire for baptism, so also no one can attain salvation unless he is a member of the Church or at least is ordered towards the Church by desire. But for anyone to attain to salvation, it is not enough that he be really a member of the Church or be by desire ordered towards it; it is also required that he die in the state of grace, joined to God by faith, hope, and charity."
This draft was written by eminent orthodox Catholic theologians, under the leadership of Cardinal Ottaviani. (https://novusordowatch.org/2017/10/council-could-have-been-original-vatican2-drafts/)
I think that if John XXIII and Paul VI had been true popes these texts would have been approved and solemnly proclaimed as the dogmatic constitution of the true Second Vatican Council.
God Bless,
Paweł
Pawel,
DeleteYes, the Council would have been a boost to humanity's relationship to God if we had a true pope.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What a load of codswallop in this post! The decree itself states it was for disciplinary reasons - no amount of convoluted diatribe and nonsense can make it read otherwise. This is well established. On a couple of other points (the screed does not merit serious refutation - the tone says everything), in my experience, it's always the BOD/BOB adherents who oust the 'Feeneyites' - never the reverse. On one occasion in one thread, someone actually exhorted a fellow poster not to argue with ' Feeneyites' as they're too logical! There's an admission for you. Also, mention is made of the Canons of Trent on Justification but - unsurprisingly - not those specifically on the sacrament of baptism itself - go figure: The Canons of Trent on baptism
ReplyDelete“If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost”: Let him be anathema.”
Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 2
If anyone saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary to salvation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5. (Mar. 3, 1547).
Not to mention Our Blessed Lord's own words: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5. or for good measure: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, 'unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,' as the Truth says, 'enter in the Kingdom of Heaven' [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, 1439.
"...the washing of baptism distinguishes and separates all Christians from the rest whom this stream of atonement has not washed and who are not members of Christ..."
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (#47), 20the November 1947
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith..."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (#22) 29th June 1943.
Explain all these away as you try your utmost insulting posturing to attempt to show that the sacrament of baptism is not absolutely necessary (necessity of means) for salvation. Alternatively, you can simply continue to be obnoxious as you have been throughout this post and disallow this response with vitriolic insults. Par for the course, sadly.
@Unknown1:04
DeleteI will answer your arguments, and I challenge you to an online debate in a neutral forum:
You write, “The decree itself states it was for disciplinary reasons - no amount of convoluted diatribe and nonsense can make it read otherwise. This is well established.”
Reply: Is it really? Then why did the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issue the decree WHEN IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER PURELY DISCIPLINARY MATTERS? The decree of excommunication was issued by “the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals…”---FAITH AND MORALS. It never states the decree was for mere disciplinary matters. Furthermore, The Letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston states the following:
“This Supreme Sacred Congregation has very carefully followed the beginning and the continuation of the serious controversy raised by certain associates of the St. Benedict Center and of Boston College, concerning the interpretation of the maxim: "Outside the Church, no salvation.”
It was over interpretation of a matter of DOCTRINE.
You write, “This is well established. On a couple of other points (the screed does not merit serious refutation - the tone says everything)… On one occasion in one thread, someone actually exhorted a fellow poster not to argue with ' Feeneyites' as they're too logical! “
Reply: Translation, “I can’t refute it.” I will gladly debate you on a neutral forum in writing. Everyone can then see who has the serious arguments and is logical, and who has neither; or will you “bravely run away”?
You write, “The Canons of Trent on baptism “If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in Baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost”: Let him be anathema.”
Reply: The Catechism of the Council of Trent, written just three years after the Council itself and approved for publication by Pope St. Pius V, states “The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." I guess the Pope St. Pius V and all popes through Pope Pius XII) didn’t understand Trent as well Leonard Feeney (a child-abusing madman), two misfit “monks” from upstate NY, and you!
(continued below)
Continued:
DeleteMoreover, context is everything. This canon was formulated by the theologians at Trent to condemn the heresy of the so-called Reformers (principally Martin Luther) who taught that since faith alone saves, if someone doesn't have water to baptize you can substitute it with milk or beer. Trent was defining the matter of the Sacrament of Baptism, not condemning BOD or BOB.
Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 2 If anyone saith that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary to salvation; let him be anathema—No one is claiming that Baptism is optional; it is necessary as the usual way of salvation, but God can substitute for the sacrament in extraordinary circumstances.
Proof: St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
But you know better than a Doctor of the Church! How did Pope Pius IX declare him a Doctor when he taught heresy (according to you)?
How about this quote, " For ALL have sinned, and do need the glory of God." (Romans 3:23; Emphasis mine). I guess this disproves the Immaculate Conception of Mary, no??
(Continued below)
You write, “ Not to mention Our Blessed Lord's own words: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5.”
DeleteReply: St. Fulgentius (6th Century): Enchiridion Patristicum 2269: "From the time when Our Savior said 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' without the sacrament of baptism, apart from those who pour forth their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church WITHOUT BAPTISM, no one can receive the kingdom of Heaven, nor eternal life." (Emphasis mine).
When Pope Gregory XVI canonized St. Alphonsus on May 26, 1839, the Bull of Canonization declared his works could be read "without the least fear of finding the smallest error." Yet Fred and Bobby Dimond have found him in "innocent error." They know better than Pope Gregory. Furthermore, all theologians and canonists since Trent teach that the grace of Baptism can be received outside the actual sacrament. Yes, every single one that wasn't censured. They also teach the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism in the same theological manuals they wrote--of course including the aforementioned St. Alphonsus. Therefore, we must conclude that either there is no contradiction in the two doctrines, or these intellectual and spiritual giants were schizophrenic, not realizing their work was internally inconsistent.
Here are but two examples:
Theologian Ott: "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation" (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 356).
On the same page:"In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood."
Theologian Tanquerey: "Baptism of water is necessary for all by necessity of Divine precept." (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 2:226). On pg. 228, "Contrition, or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins."
How could these be "innocent mistakes" of theological giants? They would be heretics--and crazy ones--who don't see intrinsic contradictions in their own writings.
(continued below)
You write, “ Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (#47), 20the November 1947 "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith..."
DeleteReply: Pope Pius XII (Oct. 29, 1951): Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."
Didn’t Pope Pius XII know what he wrote prior? Was he insane, or did he realize BOD and the absolute necessity of water baptism are compatible WHEN PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD?
You write, “Explain all these away…”
Reply: I just did.
You write, “… as you try your utmost insulting posturing to attempt to show that the sacrament of baptism is not absolutely necessary (necessity of means) for salvation.”
Reply: I explained the distinction of Necessity of Means as expounded by theologian Van Noort above. Please read what I wrote.
You write: “Alternatively, you can simply continue to be obnoxious as you have been throughout this post and disallow this response with vitriolic insults. Par for the course, sadly.”
Reply: I –once more ---challenge you to debate me in a neutral online forum. I have allowed your every word here and responded with charity. I will do the same in a debate.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I hope you like the sound of crickets from this anonymous poster Introibo. Lol
DeleteUnknown,
DeleteDid you even read Introibo's post? You just regurgitated the claims that stem from the very principle that he put down (namely, interpretation of Trent that departs from the teachings of Popes and approved theologians IN UNANIMITY). Moreover, you didn't offer a single objection to any of Introibo's claims (conveniently only claimed that his post does not merit serious refutation (??) "- ThE tOnE sAyS iT aLl" DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE CITED SEVERAL EXAMPLES FROM POPES AND APPROVED THEOLOGIANS. Ahh but you're the final arbiter of truth! My apologies... As you stand at your judgement, try to explain to Our Lord why you rejected the authority of the very men that he placed over you and demanded that you be subject to).
The entire point is that Feeneyites interpret the claims too strictly WITHOUT ANY BASIS. If you're truly sincere, then at the very least reply with ONE QUOTE from ANY approved theologian or Pope POST-Trent that claims what you do (denial of BOD/BOB), we can proceed from there. I could add more, but I won't; if you're worth anyone's time you can do at least that much (citing any aforementioned source) because, quite frankly: You. Do not. Matter.
Pardon my bluntness and God Bless,
Dapouf
@David,
DeleteLOL!
@Dapouf,
This is the typical Feeneyite.
God Bless you both,
---Introibo
I notice that the typical Feenyite™ talks in this way. Why is that? I don't know of another group whose adherents talk in such a similar manner more than them. Influence from the bro 'monks'?
Delete@anon9:22
DeleteYes. It is like a cult. In unison, they will not read anything that goes against their opinion--as is witnessed by the fact that the Unknown commenter obviously did not really read what I wrote but gave it only a cursory glance; if he did read it, that doesn't bode well for his capacity to understand. They will also communicate angrily and often call people "liars" and "heretics" like Fred and Bobby. Note well that NONE OF THEM (Including Fred and Bobby) will ever agree to a written debate in aneutral forum where the ridiculousness of their position can be exposed for all to easily read.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteIt seems my reply was unnecessary! My apologies for getting somewhat riled up; such blatant affronts to Catholic obedience really bring out the Middle Eastern genes in me jajaja. Edifying post as always.
God Bless,
Dapouf
Dapouf,
DeleteFeeneyites are tough to deal with due to their rancor.
God Bless,
---Introibo
To be saved, one must be a member of the Catholic Church, either in fact (in re), as an actual member; or, at least by desire (in voto). But membership of the Catholic Church alone does not suffice for eternal salvation; one must also die in the state of sanctifying grace, which is the friendship and union of the individual soul with the Blessed Trinity.
ReplyDeleteWe are therefore obliged, to the best of our ability, to attempt to bring all men to the light of the Catholic Faith; yet, unless given a special knowledge by Almighty God, when a person, apparently dies outside of the Faith, one cannot judge the state of that person's soul. Nor, conversely, can we judge the state of the souls of those who die as actual members of the Church, unless, again, one is given a special knowledge of the state of that person's soul--- or if Holy Mother Church, by her Apostolic Authority and the Petrine Office, formally declares that that person is among the Elect.
We therefore pray for the souls of Catholics and those who externally die as non-Catholics, though to be sure, public Masses may only be offered for the repose of those who die as Catholic (in re) or who have the express intention of doing so. In the case of non-Catholics, we may conclude that the prayer for the repose of their souls is that they were united (in voto) with Holy Church; and that, moreover, such souls also died in the state of friendship with God.
A person, therefore, who dies outside the Catholic Church, both in fact (in re) AND by desire (in voto) CANNOT be saved, for outside the Catholic Church, there is absolutely no salvation.
DZ2,
DeleteAt the end of the day these things seem to be particularities that theologians would discuss, in turn making them potentially dangerous for us because they could scandalize given our limited knowledge, but I'll give my opinion. As a disclaimer, the following idea is something I saw recently, but I don't know how supported it is by theologians, so it could very well be wrong. It makes sense to me, though.
Regarding your first paragraph, I think we agree, but to elaborate a bit more (I find this topic interesting), in regards to salvation, sanctifying grace suffices, and church membership is not necessary (this doesn't mean there's no obligation to be a member; just bear with me). The reason for this is that Church membership is something external (necessitating profession of faith, per Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis). I've seen it said that it's only through actual water baptism (receiving the indelible mark that distinguishes) that one becomes a member of the Church.
Thus, it would seem that, considering all of this, in order for those in invincible ignorance to have the POSSIBILITY of being saved, they'd have to be saved in SPITE of not being members of the Church. Thus, if they live according to the natural law, at or before the moment of death *God will infuse sanctifying grace into their souls* thus allowing them to enter into Heaven (essentially BOD).
Though, of course, this sanctifying grace was infused since they lived according to the natural law and had no other means to obtain water baptism and become members of the Church, but someone who has the means to do what they couldn't and chooses not to, will not likely be so fortunate to have sanctifying grace infused into their souls (hence the obligation to actively work toward becoming a member in the Church). Moreover, of course one must be part of the Church ("part of the flock", in some quotes), to be saved (de fide), but the important thing to note, (I could be wrong) from what I've seen, no quotes specify that this being part of the Church must be manifested through membership. Thus, in some way, those who are in invincible ignorance and miraculously have sanctifying grace infused in their souls, are united to the Church in some way without being members. Similarly with Catechumens, since they haven't been baptized either and would not yet be members.
Note: It seems this is what some would term "internal Church membership" on this topic.
Hopefully nothing I said here was too far off, but these are just my two cents. I agree with the rest of your paragraphs, though regarding the last one, I don't think we'd be able to identify people who fulfill those criteria, since their "desire" is something internal, which only God can know.
God Bless,
Dapouf
@DZ2,
DeleteYou are correct!
Dapouf,
You must be WITHIN the Church to be saved, not necessarily a member with the indelible mark of Baptism. The axiom is "OUTSIDE the Church, no salvation" not "Membership in the Church, or no salvation."
Those who die with the grace of BOD are WITHIN the Church via sanctifying grace.
No one can know who is saved unless canonized (or by special revelation). Likewise, we can only know for certain Judas Iscariot is in Hell. There are others there, we just can say with certainty who are those souls.
God Bless you both,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteWhat you said is essentially what I was thinking, put concisely. Though, lately I have been wondering about how we know Judas is in Hell. I know the Novus Ordo will say that we cannot know for sure, but on the other hand I've had it understood that we know through Tradition that he IS in Hell, but I'm not entirely sure what elements of Tradition (or rather where in Tradition) teach this. Any information on this would be appreciated.
God Bless,
Dapouf
Dapouf,
DeleteChrist tells us of the impending damnation of Judas no less than three times:
"Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?" He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve." (St. John 6:70-71).
"The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born." (St. Matthew 26:24)
"When I was with them [the Apostles] I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction[Judas Iscariot], in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.(St. John 17:12)
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches under the sacrament of Holy orders:
"Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, WHICH ONLY BROUGHT HIM EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION." (Emphasis mine).
Finally, Pope Pius XI teaches in his Encyclical "Ad Catholici Sacredotii," n. 49:
"Judas, an Apostle of Christ, 'one of the twelve,' as the Evangelists sadly observe, was led down to the abyss of iniquity precisely through the spirit of greed for earthly things."
Therefore, we have three Scripture statements of Christ interpreted as meaning Judas was damned by all theologians who taught on the topic, and it was confirmed by the official Catechism of the Church emanating from Trent. We also have a direct teaching confirming this again by pope Pius XI. Therefore we have moral certainty Judas is in Hell.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you, this helps a lot! This raises one more question for me: could you explain to me a bit about moral certainty and whatever else there is? (Absolute?)
Please respond when you're not too busy. Also I don't mind if you simply provide a link or book to read.
God Bless,
Dapouf
Dapouf,
DeleteAccording to theologians McHugh and Callan, "Moral Theology,"[1930], 1:643, “Judgments are morally certain, when error is impossible according to what is customary among mankind, the opposite of what is held by the mind being so unlikely that it would be imprudent to be moved by it.”
For more on types of certainty, please see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm
God Bless,
---Introibo
More quotes proving Judas is in hell:
DeleteSt. Thomas Aquinas: "In the case of Judas, the abuse of grace was the reason for his reprobation, since he was made reprobate because he died without grace."
Pope St. Leo the Great: "The godless betrayer, shutting his mind to all these things [offerings of God's Mercy], turned upon himself, not with a mind to repent, but in the madness of self-destruction: so that this man who had sold the Author of life to the executioners of His death, even in the act of dying sinned unto the increase of his own eternal punishment."
St. Augustine: "For Judas, when he killed himself, killed a wicked man, and passed from this life chargeable not only with the death of Christ, but also with his own: for though he killed himself on account of his crime, his killing himself was another crime."
A V2 sect "bishop" once claimed that it was heresy to claim that Judas is in hell. And Bergoglio doesn't seem to believe that Judas is damned either. He even denies the existence of hell. This is further proof that this abominable sect is not the Catholic Church but a creation of the devil.
DeleteI remember back in the late 1950's members of my family thought in order to get to Heaven all that was needed was a written membership in the Church.
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThat was commonplace at the time in the United States. Catholics became lukewarm and did not know the faith. That's what allowed Vatican II to take place.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The way I understand it and you can correct me. Is that BOD you can be justified, but you just don't get the actual sacrament. Or the sacramental grace.
ReplyDelete@anon4:20
DeleteYou are correct that BOD is not a sacrament. The term "grace of baptism"applies to a bundle of gifts that the Sacrament alone gives to the recipient. Those gifts are:
*The infusion of sanctifying grace (which washes away all sin, both Original and actual [mortal and venial])
*The infusion of the three theological virtues (these actually never exist in a soul without sanctifying grace, but are distinct from sanctifying grace)
*The removal of all temporal punishment for sin
*The communication of the baptismal character on the soul which gives the soul a right to participate in the Church's sacramental life
*Incorporation into the Church
(See theologian Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 350-360)
BOD does not communicate "the bundle" that is always communicated via the "grace of baptism."
BOD does communicate the first two items in the bundle, however, and as a consequence puts the recipient within the One True Church. So while it does not communicate "the grace of baptism," it communicates enough of the gifts included in the grace of baptism to justify. This is because justification consists simply in the existence of God's life in the soul and the habituation of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. While it is true that a man who receives baptism of desire receives something other than the "grace of baptism" technically considered, the person who receives BOD does receive the justifying effects of baptism.
God Bless,
---Introibo
One self deflating argument made by the Feeneyite (I've confronted a few on this) is that they acknowledge and believe that it's possible for a member of the Church in mortal sin to be saved if that member is not able to make it to confession and has a perfect contrition.
ReplyDeleteNotice they believe that a person so long as he/she has perfect contrition can be saved WITHOUT the necessary sacrament (Penance/Confession) to remove a person's mortal sin.
Yet, these same people don't believe that it's possible to be made a member of the Church and be saved unless it's through water baptism only. Talk about inconsistency.
Perfect Contrition works the same way as Baptism of Blood and Desire. They are a substitute if the normal means of receiving the sacrament itself cannot be received.
These people have a scrupulous problem and cannot draw distinctions because they are so bent on their obsessed viewpoint. It truly is a sickness of the soul.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteTrue! I would also add they believe in Spiritual Communion apart from the actual Sacrament.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you for this enlightening summary of the whole BOD/BOB debate. I remember getting into a debate with the Dimonds on this many years ago though I no longer remember the details. I knew another sede (since passed away; rest in peace) who warned me of the "Feeneyite" influence.
ReplyDeletecairsahr__stjoseph,
DeleteHis warning was a good one; he was correct!
God Bless,
---Introibo
It’s funny because some of these feenyites were exposed as Gnostics recently. Is feenyism controlled opposition from the right? Who can say?
ReplyDeleteRyan,
DeleteI don't know, but they've been around about 20 years before Vatican II and have only become more deranged in beliefs and actions.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I don't think they are "controlled opposition" but we cannot be sure. The Dimonds have done some great work (On DNA having a designer; and "Magic" being proof of the demonic") that I have trouble believing they are "controlled opposition". Rather, I think they think they are most faithful by being the most "hardline" as it were. The Dimonds don't seem to be older than I am, so I wonder if they simply were influenced by the remaining Feeneyites in the '90's.
DeleteIntrobio,
ReplyDeleteDo feenyites believe the OT saints went to heaven, or are in Hell? They weren’t baptized right?
Ryan,
DeleteFeeneyites are correct that the sacraments of the New Law were not needed to go to Heaven prior to Pentecost. Even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, and Baptism was not necessary in the days of the Old Testament; it obviously hadn't even been instituted yet by Christ.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@introibo I think they will come around. They have to. I simply can't believe that they will simply abandon it all; the Faith I mean. Because, in the end, one will have to choose between the Antipope or the Faith (Apoc. 13: 8). I think we'll just have to bear with it, until then. Just like the NO types who not quite will go sede yet.
ReplyDeleteMy own blog. I suggest starting from the first (listed in order on the right side) because it really all fits together.
https://unmakingthering.blogspot.com/
cairsahr__stjoseph,
DeleteThank you for sharing your blog link!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, thank you for the compliment. And, by the way, Merry Christmas to you!
ReplyDeleteThe reason I wrote as much as I did, was to reinforce what you are stating. As Catholics, we believe in BOTH Baptism of Desire and Blood, AND the dogma 'Outside the Church, there is no salvation'; there is and never has been the slightest contradiction between the two.
So we avoid two errors:
The Conciliar Church which says that there is salvation outside the Church; and the Fr. Leonard Feeney followers who argue that one must always and without exception be a member of the Church as an actual, member only, through water Baptism, only.
Thus, we are not liberal and we are not reactionary (the latter of which is often a hyper response to liberalism---even politically, sometimes). What we are is Catholic, by the grace of God. And we hope that those who do die externally outside the Church, die as member of her by desire (and in the state of grace)...but we work to hopefully make them ACTUAL members.
But, in the end, we leave all judgments to the whereabouts of any soul (and frankly, how would we know anyway?) to the mercy and definitive judgments of the Blessed Trinity.
DZ2,
DeleteBeautifully and correctly stated! If only everyone understood the faith as well as you, my friend! Fred and Bobby would get nowhere.
Merry Christmas and God Bless,
---Introibo
New archives to download in the Catholic Archive https://catholicarchivist.blogspot.com/2021/12/new-books-to-download-pdf-december-16.html
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Archive,
DeleteThank you for your indispensable work, as always! You've given me much material to read!
God Bless,
Dapouf
The Catholic Archive,
DeleteAwesome work! Thank you for your tremendous work!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Since when do most theologians of the Church agree on BoD. Could you tell us where you get that from?
ReplyDeleteThen if most do agree on BoD, why should I accept that ,because most are in communion with BoD, it's true? Even if this comes from a theologians what does that matter. Theologians pre-Vatican II were approved by the Church and then agreed with Vatican II, filled with heresies and schims. Theologians are clearly fallible despite their numbers. This is complete garbage.
What becomes the point of water baptism if anyone can receive baptism of desire. Why did Jesus take the time to get baptised, if he could just desire it. Pure disunifying nonesense.There is only way not 2 or 3.
@anon5:22
DeleteYou write: Since when do most theologians of the Church agree on BoD. Could you tell us where you get that from?
Ans. From the manuals of ALL approved theologians since Trent.
You write: Even if this comes from a theologians what does that matter.
Ans. As I wrote above, "Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it." (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83; Emphasis mine)." That is also the teaching of Pope Pius IX.
You write: Theologians pre-Vatican II were approved by the Church and then agreed with Vatican II, filled with heresies and schims.
Ans. After the defection of the hierarchy and false pope Roncalli, those theologians could not be approved as there was no hierarchy to approve their writings and CORRECT THEM WHEN THEY ARE IN ERROR. They are kept safe by the Magisterium and why they could fall post 1958 without a pope and bishops turning from the faith.
You write: Theologians are clearly fallible despite their numbers.
Ans. No, see response above--they are prevented by the Holy Ghost AS A BODY from falling into error for they are and extension of the bishops who are in union with a true pope.
You write: What becomes the point of water baptism if anyone can receive baptism of desire.
Ans. Not anyone can receive BOD; it's an extraordinary gift of God. That's why we must proselytize.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, I would like to give you a sincere thank you for this post. This helped a lot. Within the past 24 hours, after some time of debating, two Feeneyites have blocked me in Twitter after they couldn't refute the arguments presented in this post of yours.
ReplyDelete@anon5:33
DeleteGlad it helped, my friend! Feeneyites really don't have a theological leg on which to stand.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hello Introibo, this was a very good article until point 4 where you said -“ 4. Explicit faith is necessary for BOD and BOB; implicit faith (invincible ignorance) will not save. (These Feeneyites reject Church teaching, especially that of Pope Pius IX). “
ReplyDeleteI don’t really understand why exactly you call us feeneyites? We are merely thomists who follow St Thomas on whether or not explicit faith in the trinity and incarnation is nessecary for salvation. We also do not deny but rather follow church teaching.
Here are Responses of the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI, 1703:
Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp. A PROMISE IS NOT SUFFICIENT, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION
Then there is of course the Athanasian creed.
Now unless you can cite a papal text against us, against st Thomas, against the holy office under Clement XI and against st athanasius of Alexandria you have no reason to be calling us feeneyites, and the Pius IX quote says the words “through divine light and grace” also just in general no pagan could love God without faith.
Yet I do not think you were of bad will or even trying to do what I have implicitly accused you of as later in the article you right that a feeneyite got mad at you for denying implicit BOD (which still requires explicit faith and is very distinct from implicit faith, which is more like the “theology” of Rahner)
And then later you said “As can be plainly seen, there really is no implicit faith--there is explicit faith in the internal forum known but to God”
So was this just a typo and you meant to say those who deny implicit BOD not say those who deny implicit faith?
I am asking you to please if you can edit the post, if you cannot please make a new post clarifying
Also I am not a feeneyite
God bless
@anon1:38
DeleteWhat I wrote is self-explanatory and was taught by post-Trent approved theologians---this was condensed by me from Van Noort, where I wrote:
"So, for example, a pagan who loved God with his whole heart and was invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church and how to enter would implicitly desire baptism if he willed, "I want to use all the means God has proscribed for salvation." God could thereby save him at the moment of death by the infusion of the true faith and sanctifying Grace (Baptism of Desire)."
So those with implicit faith who are invincibly ignorant can be saved by God prior to the moment of death by AN INFUSION OF FAITH AND SANCTIFYING GRACE. They will therefore receive the grace of Baptism along with all necessary truths of faith required to be considered Catholic.
God Bless,
---Introibo
So those who have implicit faith in their life will receive explicit faith? I don’t think anyone is contesting that
DeleteGod bless
@anon8:22
DeleteWith the caveat that BOD is a rare miracle of God, and the person must cooperate with actual grace, strive to live the best moral life, etc. BOD is not an excuse to downplay the Great Commission.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Very true, to say we shouldn’t do missions because someone might have bod is like saying we shouldn’t evangelise because a listener may already be catholic
DeleteI still think you should change the wording of point 4 though
God bless,